Players for Monument outside ACC...

[GhostofPotvin29]

it's great for the fans and even young, future fans

How?  How is this great for me?

Then why build any monuments/statues/art structures in public anywhere?  Even if it doesn't enhance your enjoyment of an area it clearly does for others.  It's not public money being spent so I don't see what's to be upset over.  It's a drop in the bucket for MLSE and I doubt they would do it without some idea that it would improve the experience for fans in general.

 

[hap_leaf]

it's great for the fans and even young, future fans

How?  How is this great for me?

That is an interesting point actually.  At first glance it is for the fans.  But at the core level isn't this really for the players?  MLSE has chosen to do some things to recognize some of the older players whatever their agenda might be. 
Bower saved pucks with his bare face - on purpose - I think paying something back to him is great.

 

[Bender]

Has the season started yet?

 

[Highlander]

Avro, do not be so poor in spirit. This monument will be viewed be us as old men telling our grandkids about the goalie with no face mask, and the exploits of a young man with curly flowing hair whom scored 10 points in one game against the hated Bruins.
This will be something enjoyed for generations to come, lasting hopefully, hundreds of years.

The thing about the costs (however insignificant or significant) is that the price is actually paid out over these years, in the enjoyment, history and sentimentality that this  Monument will provide.

 

[AvroArrow]

Well, first of all, "we" aren't doing anything.

:

 

[Joe S.]

Well, first of all, "we" aren't doing anything.

:

I'm not sure why that's you're reaction. He is 100% correct.

 

[AvroArrow]

Also, in terms of wasting money on something stupid, this monument is roughly the equivalent of you or I buying a chocolate bar. It's such an insignificant amount relative to MLSE's finances that it's not worth the handwringing

Who care's if it's insignificant to MLSE?  It could be spent in a way such that's its hugely significant to the fans who support them.

And there's no handwringing going on...

The money being spent on this has absolutely no real impact on anything related to the team on the ice or the cost of tickets to see them.

Except the cost of this could be used to provide a "discount day" for those who don't normally get a chance to go to a game, or something similar.

it's really not worth getting upset about.

I'm not getting upset at all.  I just think it's a stupid waste of money.

 

[Corn Flake]

it's great for the fans and even young, future fans

How?  How is this great for me?

 

[AvroArrow]

Well, first of all, "we" aren't doing anything.

:

I'm not sure why that's you're reaction. He is 100% correct.

Because it's an asinine comment.  It was a generalized "we" used frequently when having an affiliation with a group/team/whatever.  The only time it's necessary to explicitly say that is when some stupid troll is trying to troll.

 

[AvroArrow]

Avro, do not be so poor in spirit.

I'm not poor in spirit.

 

[AvroArrow]

it's great for the fans and even young, future fans

How?  How is this great for me?

... snip ...

: What a useful post...

 

[Kin]

Because it's an asinine comment.  It was a generalized "we" used frequently when having an affiliation with a group/team/whatever.

But that's not a frequent use of "we". It's common for a fan to say "we won the game" to mean the players on the team and it's common for a fan to say "we signed Robidas" to put themselves with the team as a larger entity but I don't think most fans would say "we" when referring to decisions made by ownership that don't really affect the team. If Mike Illitch buys an expensive painting, do you think there are a lot of Red Wings or Tigers fans who would say "Look at all the money we're wasting! That money could be spent on scouts!"

This is MLSE spending their money on something that furthers their interest in the team and, I mean, for someone who's complaining as much about the ticket prices as you are, I really don't understand why you're reacting like this to the idea that MLSE is looking after themselves before you. 

The only time it's necessary to explicitly say that is when some stupid troll is trying to troll.

I appreciate that "troll" has become shorthand for "that person has an opinion I don't like" among the people who have problems defending their position but the more traditional definition of it is someone who takes a needlessly and pointlessly controversial and contrary position for the purposes of riling people up.

Look around, champ. That's not me on this one.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Except the cost of this could be used to provide a "discount day" for those who don't normally get a chance to go to a game, or something similar.

That'd be a nice idea in theory, but really how effective would it be? Even if you ignore the fact that the ticket prices probably wouldn't drop all that much how do you guarantee that those tickets are going to fans who previously couldn't afford them? They could just as easily be bought by the same group of people that typically go to games but just at a cheaper rate.

 

[AvroArrow]

But that's not a frequent use of "we". It's common for a fan to say "we won the game" to mean the players on the team and it's common for a fan to say "we signed Robidas" to put themselves with the team as a larger entity but I don't think most fans would say "we" when referring to decisions made by ownership that don't really affect the team. If Mike Illitch buys an expensive painting, do you think there are a lot of Red Wings or Tigers fans who would say "Look at all the money we're wasting! That money could be spent on scouts!"

This is MLSE spending their money on something that furthers their interest in the team and, I mean, for someone who's complaining as much about the ticket prices as you are, I really don't understand why you're reacting like this to the idea that MLSE is looking after themselves before you. 

The only time it's necessary to explicitly say that is when some stupid troll is trying to troll.

I appreciate that "troll" has become shorthand for "that person has an opinion I don't like" among the people who have problems defending their position but the more traditional definition of it is someone who takes a needlessly and pointlessly controversial and contrary position for the purposes of riling people up.

Look around, champ. That's not me on this one.

Blah, blah, blah.  Just more nonsense.

 

[bustaheims]

That'd be a nice idea in theory, but really how effective would it be? Even if you ignore the fact that the ticket prices probably wouldn't drop all that much how do you guarantee that those tickets are going to fans who previously couldn't afford them? They could just as easily be bought by the same group of people that typically go to games but just at a cheaper rate.

Especially when you consider that the only tickets that would be available for a deal like this would be those that aren't already owned by season ticket holders.

 

[AvroArrow]

Except the cost of this could be used to provide a "discount day" for those who don't normally get a chance to go to a game, or something similar.

That'd be a nice idea in theory, but really how effective would it be? Even if you ignore the fact that the ticket prices probably wouldn't drop all that much how do you guarantee that those tickets are going to fans who previously couldn't afford them? They could just as easily be bought by the same group of people that typically go to games but just at a cheaper rate.

I agree, but I'm sure there's ways to have a decent level of success with something like this.

Besides, it was just an example of how the money could be better spent.  There's probably tons of different ways to spend that money such as giving kids that come to games something special - maybe autographed pucks, or something.

 

[Kin]

That'd be a nice idea in theory, but really how effective would it be? Even if you ignore the fact that the ticket prices probably wouldn't drop all that much how do you guarantee that those tickets are going to fans who previously couldn't afford them? They could just as easily be bought by the same group of people that typically go to games but just at a cheaper rate.

Especially when you consider that the only tickets that would be available for a deal like this would be those that aren't already owned by season ticket holders.

Yeah, I think there's sort of a perception already in the city that actually going to games is sort of the province of the fairly privileged already. The idea that you're going to win over more fans by virtue of giving more stuff to the people in the building one night is pretty facile.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Except the cost of this could be used to provide a "discount day" for those who don't normally get a chance to go to a game, or something similar.

That'd be a nice idea in theory, but really how effective would it be? Even if you ignore the fact that the ticket prices probably wouldn't drop all that much how do you guarantee that those tickets are going to fans who previously couldn't afford them? They could just as easily be bought by the same group of people that typically go to games but just at a cheaper rate.

I agree, but I'm sure there's ways to have a decent level of success with something like this.

Besides, it was just an example of how the money could be better spent.  There's probably tons of different ways to spend that money such as giving kids that come to games something special - maybe autographed pucks, or something.

Then someone else will come along and say there's an even BETTER way to spend that money.

 

[Joe S.]

Except the cost of this could be used to provide a "discount day" for those who don't normally get a chance to go to a game, or something similar.

That'd be a nice idea in theory, but really how effective would it be? Even if you ignore the fact that the ticket prices probably wouldn't drop all that much how do you guarantee that those tickets are going to fans who previously couldn't afford them? They could just as easily be bought by the same group of people that typically go to games but just at a cheaper rate.

It would be nice if the Leafs could do something like Junior Jays days.

Grated I get the skydome takes twice as many people, and there are twice as many games, but it would still be nice if they had some kind of incentive to get the kids to the games a little cheaper.

 

[bustaheims]

Then someone else will come along and say there's an even BETTER way to spend that money.

Almsot all of which require becoming repeated occurrences over multiple seasons to have any lasting impact - so, they represent consistent extra spending. The monument, on the other hand, is a one time spending per statue that should last for as long as the Leafs play in the ACC.